|
Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:03 PM EDT |
The Ninth Circuit has held that it is improper and unethical to
interview jurors to discover their course of deliberations. N. Pac. Ry. v. Mely,
219 F.2d 199, 202 (9th Cir. 1954). Post-trial juror interviews may be
appropriate if there is reason to believe that a juror intentionally made an
untrue statement during voir dire about a material issue and, had the question
been answered truthfully, it would have provided a valid basis to challenge that
juror for cause. See United States v. Saya, 247 F.3d 929, 936-37 (9th
Cir.) (considering juror affidavits for that purpose), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
1009 (2001); Hard v. Burlington N. R.R., 812 F.2d 482, 485 (9th Cir. 1987)
(although post-verdict juror interviews to attack verdicts are disfavored,
plaintiff was allowed to offer such evidence to show that juror concealed past
contacts with defendant during voir dire and then interjected extraneous
information during jury deliberations).
You could note that Apple
in clamoring for it's own access appears to be tacitly admitting Samsung has
cause to interview jurors.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|